1 - 10 Next
Nothing demonstrates our need for the Second Amendment to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government than that those who advocate a government large and powerful enough to become tyrannical are the ones who do not want that right to be Constitutionally protected. None of the other nine rights are safe without that one. Those who scoff at the notion that we would ever be able to exercise that right for that purpose even we needed to might remember that many here and in England felt the same way up until 1776. Their and our only alternative is to submit to tyranny. That is the genesis of 'Live Free or Die'.
I cannot believe that intelligent people on both sides do not realize the folly of seeking short term, single issue, political gain by abusing rather than resolving this lack of specificity in constitutional separation of powers and the rule of law that has and will come back to bite them. Either side has an opportunity here to rise above the fray and deport themselves as statesmen rather than politicians by focusing on the larger issue. If not for honor and integrity they might consider that doing so just may benefit them politically.
Let me make sure I have this right. Obama is justifying not enforcing current immigration law based on the Presidents prosecutorial discretion which acknowledges and allows for cases where the President does not have the funding to fully enforce all the laws Congress has passed. In such cases he has the discretion to not enforce some of them, presumably those less important than the ones he will continue enforcing with the limited funds he does have. But to do that, he needs Congress to grant him the funds with which to do it? At the very least, should he not be required to present the case that the finds required to enforce the law is greater than the funds required to not enforce it? Or are we simply to accept that he can justify his actions with rationale that contradicts itself? The larger issue here is definition of executive privilege. What are the guidelines? What are the limits? Are there any? What is the criteria? Where are any of them codified? How is any form of consistency and predictability to be achieved? Unless and until that is done the default will be, as it has been this time around, whether or not one approves of what the President is doing and/or whether or not one approves of the President who is doing it. The Constitution is then moot because the President can do whatever a sufficiently large and loud segment of the population want him to do. Worse, there is no acceptable way to determine if even that unquantified criteria has been met nor is there any recourse even if it is not. Not even the Supremes Court, which is already far too politicized, would suffice as it would have no Constitutional foundation on which to base its ruling. It would be left to do so on the same arbitrary criteria of personal approval or disapproval of what is being done and who is doing it. It is all tantamount to dispensing with the Constitution and replacing it with a single rule which decrees that there are no rules except those that are made up as we go along by those with enough influence to make it stick. That is not a living Constitution. It is a dead Constitution.
In response to:

Defining Hillary Down

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: 3 hours ago (10:10 AM)
Hillary Clinton needs to be defined down because she is where she is only because she has been defined up. Her political appeal has been, is, and will always be that she is a woman and that she is Bill Clinton's wife. Absent either one of those, nobody would know who she is other than, perhaps, that she was fired from the Watergate investigation by the committees head Jeffrey Zeifman, a life long Democrat, “Because she was a liar” , “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” Think about it. Had she actually had anything going for her on her own it would have become clear in her tenure as Secretary of State and she would be running on that record instead of needing to distance herself from the albatross of both the supportive part she played in carrying it out and the distinguishing part she could have played in contrast to it. Her problem is not just that she has nothing else going for her. It is also that she did not then and, apparently, still does not now realize that she needed anything more. How unqualified can you be other than by not understanding that you must demonstrate that you are qualified?
Regardless of how they spin it and call it what you will,. everything Obama has done in foreign policy has benefited our enemies more than ourselves or our allies. Why that is so may be a matter of opinion but that it is so is not.
But he won't because he would not gain anything by doing so. This is not a man of principle. This is a man who uses principle to advance his own image.
In response to:

Random Thoughts

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jan 27, 2015 12:05 PM
True, but you know how they always duck by demanding examples.
It is reassuring to know that Obama's hubris and power is not strong enough to protect a deserter in the interest of his politics but still disturbing that it is strong enough to delay the public announcement of the confirmation of that fact until after the election for the same self-interested reason.
Hillary Clinton's political appeal has been is and will always be that she is a woman and that she is Bill Clinton's wife. Absent either one of those, nobody would know who she is other than, perhaps, that she was fired from the Watergate investigation by a fellow Democrat because she was unethical. That will not change because of anything she now does other than to divorce Bill as would be in keeping with her feminist views and as she would have done had her political career not been so dependant on being Bills wife. The task between her and the Presidency is not to do anything that would negatively affect the fragile and specious appeal of those two things. Think about it. Had she actually had anything going for her on her own it would have become clear in her tenure as Secretary of State and she would be running on that record instead of needing to distance herself from the albatross of both the supportive part she played in carrying it out and the distinguishing part she could have played in contrast to it. Her problem is not just that she has nothing else going for her. It is also that she did not then and, apparently, still does not now realize that she needed anything more. How unqualified can you be other than by not understanding that you most demonstrate that you are qualified?
1 This is not a legal trial where factual evidence can be discarded based on violations of the process used to obtain it. 2. For the Democrats to be crying partisanship during the investigation means that those facts, however obtained, are not to their liking.
1 - 10 Next